What is that weird cirlce thing off the back of the top handle? I think that thing looks pretty cool. Does it take a special lense?

ccroo

03-30-2005, 01:33 PM

What's the weird wire coming out below the XLR inputs? Does it connect to the lens?

Nate Weaver

03-30-2005, 01:38 PM

The circle up top on the back of the handle is a speaker for monitoring/playback.

The wire/connector in question is power and auto iris connection to the lens.

ccroo

03-30-2005, 01:44 PM

Thank you!

Robert_Niemann

03-30-2005, 02:16 PM

The hand grip seems to be mounted at the lens. So maybe there will be a better, more balanced handling than with the Canon XL2. But will it be good for the lens and its attachment to the body? It looks a little bit fragile to me.

Nate Weaver

03-30-2005, 02:45 PM

This arrangement with the lens is nothing new, broadcast shoulder cams have been doing this for eons, and with bodies that weigh a lot more than the HD100. Go look at a BVW400, or even a more extreme example a Sony DXC head and Beta deck on the back.

The lens/body junction is much stronger than it looks, but it can break, of course.

The 5lb supposed weight of the HD100 body will only stress the b-mount a fraction of what other cameras have in the past.

JoeFowler

03-30-2005, 03:14 PM

That camera looks awesome, if the new Panni doesn't look similar, I might be at jvcuser.com soon!

mr._guiyotinne

03-30-2005, 03:45 PM

HDX wonīt look similar; it was going to be like the DVX100 only little heavier. Then sure it wonīt be as impresive for ījob and women gatheringī but thatīs another point. Iīm not in it for the look but for the functions... Letīs wait. But itīs true, looks awesome.

Only iīm not sure about the earphone, i know itīs useful but i would rather go with full good earphones than this little beauty, because then you will have more control over what is being recorded.

JoeFowler

03-30-2005, 05:09 PM

I'm sure there is a headphone jack, but the speaker is a nice addition if you are using the lcd to screen with a run-and-gun crew. As far as the looks, it's the funtionality of the look that impresses me. The changable lenses, the shoulder mount, the handle on top, the large eyepiece, the lcd screen, xlr imputs, plus 16:9 and HD 24p all in one package. Come on, Panni better pull it out, I'm tellin' ya.

MattC

03-30-2005, 06:36 PM

These pictures are like porn for filmmakers.

I can't wait to play with this camera....

yellowdog

03-30-2005, 06:39 PM

it would be nice to see a pic of someone have it on there shoulder, to get an idea of how big it is.

mr._guiyotinne

03-30-2005, 07:54 PM

The Mickey Mouse camera... because of the speaker.

And yes, itīs like porn! The first time i saw the coded image of the JVC i felt like waching porn in pay per view coded channel! And then these complete images! THIS is an orgasm! Marketing teams know what they are doing! I have leave everything iīve been doing just to see what happens at April 4th and NAB! this is crazy! Luckily after NAB there will be a resting period till the cameras start to sell!

Shaw

03-30-2005, 08:26 PM

No resting period! We'll all be too busy hacking the details to bits predicting which will stop the other =D

Flintstone

03-30-2005, 08:35 PM

By the proportion of the deck door, it looks as though its only Mini tapes and not large ones. Too bad.

Rough comparison based on XLR inputs. Actually the JVC looks too small compared to the DVX....it's a rough comparison.:undecided

hmmm...seems like you're right...rough comparison based on the "v" on jvc and vhs...the jvc does seem to look quite smaller...my clients just love my panasonic vhs camcorder and often ask what movie studio i'm from.

http://homepage.mac.com/vhs_lover/.Pictures/jvc%20vs.%20panny.jpg

TimurCivan

03-30-2005, 11:23 PM

Thoes cameras are Fire.......

Quickie question, I seem to remeber hearing somehwere that JVC and Panasonic are related companies. Or at least they share technology. or somethign liek that.

10s

03-30-2005, 11:30 PM

WOW! The New HDX!....that is cool!!!!!!!!

Loki

03-30-2005, 11:51 PM

wow.. I've gotta say... that VHS camera is probably the most hideous looking thing I have ever seen...

makes my stomach hurt in ways only spoiled meat can...

10s

03-30-2005, 11:53 PM

this is it! :happy: http://img200.exs.cx/img200/8083/hdxxl10007ek.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us/)

TimurCivan

03-31-2005, 12:01 AM

http://img23.exs.cx/img23/8290/11hi1.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

http://img84.exs.cx/img84/2260/26ii.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

http://img90.exs.cx/img90/1492/33es.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

Barry_Green

03-31-2005, 12:26 AM

Rough comparison based on XLR inputs. Actually the JVC looks too small compared to the DVX....it's a rough comparison.:undecided

Actually I bet you're not too far off. I've been thinking that the camera would be about that size, based on the size of the tape door and the size of the LCD panel. I think it might be a little bigger in comparison to the DVX, but I'm betting it's not too much bigger than the comparison you've shown here.

Basing your comparison off the XLR ports was a great idea -- after all, no matter what else changes, those *have* to be standard size.

ChuckS

03-31-2005, 08:00 AM

Actually I bet you're not too far off. I've been thinking that the camera would be about that size, based on the size of the tape door and the size of the LCD panel. I think it might be a little bigger in comparison to the DVX, but I'm betting it's not too much bigger than the comparison you've shown here.

Basing your comparison off the XLR ports was a great idea -- after all, no matter what else changes, those *have* to be standard size.
I thought that with the chrome ring around the DVX XLR's was a little deceiving, so I checked and resized to match the three pins. Made it about 15% larger.

I hope the HDX is comparable in size and has a removable lens. The JVC "looks" like a very nice camera. :cheesy:

P.S. The mew spell check is nice - but on the DVXUser.com site, "DVX" shouldn't be considered incorrect - should it?

:thumbsup:http://www.daframegallery.com/Camera.jpg

MDKfilms

03-31-2005, 08:21 AM

Just wanted to throw in 2 cents. Do lower end prosumer cameras really need an eye piece? I mean if the eye piece is of high quality, like the hi-res BW kind found on higher end cams thats fine. But if not, then why have it at all. I would rather see a nice 7" 16:9 hi-res lcd screen, that has all the same functions like peaking and tally. Just a thought.

bgundu

03-31-2005, 08:34 AM

Just wanted to throw in 2 cents. Do lower end prosumer cameras really need an eye piece? I mean if the eye piece is of high quality, like the hi-res BW kind found on higher end cams thats fine. But if not, then why have it at all. I would rather see a nice 7" 16:9 hi-res lcd screen, that has all the same functions like peaking and tally. Just a thought.

When you're out in the field and battery life is crucial, or when it's really bright outside, the eyepiece is imperative.

TimurCivan

03-31-2005, 03:05 PM

thats awseome.

And about eyepieces. I actually like eyepieces more than LDC screens. i find handhelf fottage gets shaky when i use the LCD. so i just brace it against my eye and two hands. less shake.

lebroz

04-01-2005, 05:38 PM

I hope the HDX is comparable in size and has a removable lens. The JVC "looks" like a very nice camera. :cheesy:
:thumbsup:http://www.daframegallery.com/Camera.jpg

Yeah they are cousins afterall,

I made a post before

JVC is a HDX with its lens ripped off and replaced with a modified Pannysonic firmware/bios offcourse to write to the P2 cards in DVCPro

Give or take a few plastic pieces i guarantee the 1/3 3CCD system are xact clones

Aaron Koolen

04-01-2005, 07:06 PM

hmmm...seems like you're right...rough comparison based on the "v" on jvc and vhs...the jvc does seem to look quite smaller...my clients just love my panasonic vhs camcorder and often ask what movie studio i'm from.

Holy shit that thing is fucking ugly!

Jarred Land

04-01-2005, 09:13 PM

Yeah they are cousins afterall,

I made a post before

JVC is a HDX with its lens ripped off and replaced with a modified Pannysonic firmware/bios offcourse to write to the P2 cards in DVCPro

Give or take a few plastic pieces i guarantee the 1/3 3CCD system are xact clones

CCD's arn't even related by third-distant-cousin-once-removed. totally different ccd's, in fact the only parts on these two cameras that are the same is probally the type of cardboard used to ship them in .

I've got the JVC 500 and it's been a good cam. Had a gig the other day where the client wanted the 500 instead of the DVX. It was a simple deduction that the 500 looked more pro!!!
The gig didn't need the 500 but often you have to do what the client wants. The JVC HD cam looks great but as it's been said before, we'll see what HDX has to offer!

Mediacre

04-06-2005, 05:31 PM

Unfortunatelly, a pro look still gets lots of business on the door. Many clients will refuse anything less than a shoulder mount pro camera. I actually have a buddy, who shoots with a PD170 and is really thinking of a DV5000, because he's tired of getting the cold shoulder because of the camera's size. As you say, many times a prosumer will do the job just fine. But it seems size still matters in some fields of this business.

No deck will play that yet. It's a brand-new format, no product exists that can play it. When first announced it's likely that the JVC HD100 will be the only product that can play it, although I'm sure you can expect to see them offering a deck in the near future.

reservoir

04-06-2005, 10:21 PM

No deck will play that yet. It's a brand-new format, no product exists that can play it. When first announced it's likely that the JVC HD100 will be the only product that can play it, although I'm sure you can expect to see them offering a deck in the near future.

Wow!! That brings about an interesting paradox then. If only the camera can play back the video, that would mean capturing from the camera which would cause alot of wear and tear on the heads....correct? Unless JVC releases a *special* deck just for that purpose. If that's the case, the JVC better have a Hard Drive solution for recording!! I'd hate to wear out my new heads with hours of capturing. ~reservoir~

Barry_Green

04-07-2005, 12:01 AM

The JVC does offer hard drive recording, I believe it has a dockable hard disk unit.

And I would bet on them introducing a deck (although if Sony's is any price indication, that would imply another $4,000 you may need to budget for). The Sony HDV deck would be able to play JVC's HDV-compatible footage (meaning, 720/30p), but probably not through firewire! The FX1 and Z1 can't play 720/30P footage through firewire, only through analog component output.

As for the 24P the JVC shoots, they've invented a new format ("ProHD"), so no HDV deck will be able to play that. 24P is not in the HDV spec, and HDV-only equipment won't recognize or know what to do with it. It'd have to be a ProHD-aware deck. ProHD is backward-compatible with HDV, but HDV is not forward-compatible with ProHD. Similar to how DVCAM is backward-compatible with DV, but DV is not necessarily forward-compatible with DVCAM (for example, no Canon gear that I know of can play a DVCAM tape, even though the data bitstream is identical to DV).

So hard-disk recording looks like a good option, but if you're planning on recording 24P footage and handing over a tape to your client, you'll have to make sure they have ProHD equipment... an HDV deck or camera won't work.

Mediacre

04-07-2005, 05:37 AM

As for the 24P the JVC shoots, they've invented a new format ("ProHD"), so no HDV deck will be able to play that. 24P is not in the HDV spec, and HDV-only equipment won't recognize or know what to do with it.

That'sw why I stop arguing with the people saying the JVC wouldn't record 720/60p to tape because HDV can't do so. As you say, the anme of the game is ProHD. They might have add this as they added 24p. I read in 2 press releases(U.K. and Italian sites) for the PAL version saying it would record 60p and 50p. But let's wait and see.

That'sw why I stop arguing with the people saying the JVC wouldn't record 720/60p to tape because HDV can't do so.
Not sure I understood what you meant. Because HDV CAN record 60p to tape. 60p and 50p are part of the HDV specification. Nobody has implemented it yet, but it's been in there since day one (the fall 2003 specification announcement).

As to why JVC won't allow recording of 60p, I can't fathom. It's a necessary frame rate. You've got to be able to supply the "reality" look, if you want to get jobs shooting for other people.

I'd go so far as to say that the camera *will* record 60p, and that announcement is just one of the tidbits they're saving for NAB. Because if it truly can't record 60p, I think that's a stupid mistake on their part.

Relievo

04-23-2005, 09:33 PM

With a reel-stream 4.4.4. modification...phew!

I'm more or a creative that a technical user, but isn't the JVC 4:4:2?

How would I get 4:4:4??? <--- thats real real good isn't it?

hehe..

(Newbie :engel017: , but not for long) - just you wait till I get my filthy hands on one of those badboys! :evil:

JoshuaNitschke

04-23-2005, 10:10 PM

I'm more or a creative that a technical user, but isn't the JVC 4:4:2?

How would I get 4:4:4??? <--- thats real real good isn't it?

hehe..

(Newbie :engel017: , but not for long) - just you wait till I get my filthy hands on one of those badboys! :evil:

I'm pretty sure the JVC is 4:2:0, (Pana is 4:2:2).

4:4:4 is very good, equal luminance and color data (IIRC Sin City was the first film filmed in 4:4:4, kinda funny seeing as it was mainly black and white), but I doubt you'd have the proper equipment to record it. ;)

Barry_Green

04-23-2005, 11:23 PM

I'm pretty sure the JVC is 4:2:0, (Pana is 4:2:2).
The JVC records 4:2:0, just as all the MPEG HDV-based formats do. The Panasonic will record 4:2:2.

The question is, what is the color sampling coming out of the analog ports? It won't be 4:x:x anything, technically, because it's an analog signal. Steve Gibby asked 'em and I believe he reported it would be equivalent to 4:2:2. I asked 'em and they said 4:4:4. Others have speculated that since it's going through the DSP first, it *will* be digitized in-camera, which may mean that it's 4:2:0 internally, and the analog output would be somehow chroma-upsampled to resemble 4:2:2.

Which is basically a long-winded way of saying: we don't know anything yet, and have to test it to find out.

I'd go so far as to say that the camera *will* record 60p, and that announcement is just one of the tidbits they're saving for NAB.
Well, I have to take that back. It won't, because the chipset they're using won't support the data rate. So no 60p to tape.